In the case of Cupp v. Murphy, 1972, Daniel Murphy was convicted for the murder of his wife in Oregon state court. Prior to his arrest, he voluntarily went to a police station after being informed about his wife's death but denied any involvement in her murder. The officers noticed a dark spot on his finger and fearing that he might destroy potential evidence (underneath fingernails), they took samples without first obtaining a warrant or consent from him. He later moved to suppress this evidence arguing it violated Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as there was no probable cause for arrest at that time nor exigent circumstances justifying immediate action by law enforcement officials. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent stating that although normally such an intrusion would require either consent or search warrant based on probable cause; given the unique circumstance where destruction of evidence was imminent due its nature and location (fingernail scrapings), taking samples did not violate Fourth Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Cupp v. Murphy, Justice William O. Douglas argued that Nicholas Alonzo Murphy's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police took a sample of his fingernail scrapings without first obtaining a warrant. He contended that this constituted an unreasonable search and seizure because there was no immediate threat or danger to justify bypassing the requirement for a warrant. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that taking nail scrapings was not intrusive; in his view, it involved significant physical intrusion into personal privacy and should therefore be subject to Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted searches and seizures.